LIVE AT FIVE – 12.07.11

This administration is going to exit on the most egregious stream of Presidential pardons imaginable. Holder and Corzine, for starters, plus the various and sundry cling-ons and strap-hangers that have done the dirty deeds of swindling and obfuscating for the litany of scandals begotten by this administration.

Personal lubricant should be the top seller this Christmas season, and we look likely to need it. While BHO takes breaks from golfing to campaign next year, we’ll see major flare-ups in every theater of interest, as the economy continues to tank, and GOP front runners take turns making noises like they really want to trim the federal government, while putting in enough winks and codewords that the bloated DC bureaucracy knows it’s all just what you say to win the election, not any serious call for reform.

The only president to whom BHO will never seriously be compared is George Washington. GW had such character as to reveal, in the most personal way, what a useless insult to everything American that #OccupyResoluteDesk has been.

Category: Barack Obama

Glenn Beck, American At Large

Posted on | December 6, 2011 | 24 Comments

by Smitty

Along with Limbaugh, Beck is going to be remembered as one of the voices that helped turn this country around. His audience draw actually got may parents to buy an interface and subscribe to GBTV, a miracle that could only be topped by Stacy McCain installing TweetDeck.

While busy with all precocious ~17 lbs. of The World’s Youngest Blogger, I missed the bun fight with Newt Gingrich, though I did tune in for the Michele Bachmann piece, where Michele called Newt a ‘frugal Socialist’. Mitt speaks in bumper stickers. Newt speaks in scholarly digressions, and seems drawn to arguments for their own sake, irrespective of any real-world impacts. Has either man internalized the fact that the Tea Party cares about liberty, and neither of those big government, nominally conservative chumps is exciting?

Beck, on the other hand, engages in random acts of patriotism and sensible acts of honor. The advertisement for Thursday’s show embedded below hints at a major announcement. I haven’t the foggiest clue what he’s got cooking, but if it involves a large gathering on the Mall sometime this Spring, then I am totally there. Another idea might be the 1,000 day anniversary for that useless clown of a Senate Majority Leader to have failed to pass a budget, rolling by in about 7 weeks. But even a grizzled event planner like Stacy McCain would have a challenge stringing that together, so that’s unlikely. Tax Day in April?

Update: clownface Newt due to Jaded Haven. Remember, conservatives: the Left swooned over BHO’s wonderful baritone. How well or poorly a candidate emits words, while not nothing, should not be the main reason for fancying their campaign.

Category: Glenn Beck

Why Gingrich Will Lose: ‘Newt Wears Arrogance Like a Zebra Wears Stripes’

Posted on | December 6, 2011 | 56 Comments

“It is Newt Gingrich’s turn on the Republican presidential candidate carousel . . . For some reason, the conservative punditry hive mind is collectively suggesting that the carousel may stop with Gingrich on top. Whether it’s their weariness with the poll swings or comfort with a familiar face, I can’t say for certain. It isn’t conservatism. . . .
“Last week, he told Jake Tapper of ABC News that he had the nomination wrapped up. ‘I’m going to be the nominee,’ he said.
“Even his supporters must have gasped when he said that. . . .
“On another occasion, Gingrich explained that he’s not a natural leader, because ‘I’m too intellectual; I’m too abstract; I think too much.’
“Newt wears arrogance like a zebra wears stripes. . . .”
— Yates Walker, “Newt Gingrich’s Coming Fall,” Daily Caller

You can let polls do your thinking for you. You can let the media do your thinking for you. You can jump on a bandwagon because somebody told you that a candidate is the only “practical” alternative to Mitt Romney, or tell yourself that anybody who criticizes Gingrich is a Romney stooge, and that Newt’s the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama next year.

Or you can think for yourself and tell all the pundits and pollsters to go straight to hell.

As for me, I remember October 2009, when Tea Party activists were doing everything they could to help Doug Hoffman win the NY-23 special election, and Newt Gingrich went on TV — over and over and over again — to praise Dede Scozzafava as the best choice for conservatives.

Some friends say I’m wrong to carry a grudge like that, and you may feel differently about Gingrich. It’s a free country and you can believe whatever you want to believe. But I’m a neutral objective journalist, and it is my obligation to tell you this fact: Newt will self-destruct, and the only question is whether that self-destruction will come sooner or later.

There are people praying it comes soon — that’s an objective fact.

RECENTLY:

Dec. 1: The Raven Keeps Calling Newt’s Name
Nov. 28: This Vintage Pin-Up Girl Is Not Endorsed by the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader
Nov. 27: Newt Gingrich Wins Coveted GOP Primary Endorsement From … Bill Clinton?
Nov. 26: BOOM! Michele Bachmann Publishes Gingrich’s 2004 Pro-Amnesty Letter
Nov. 16: How Bad Is Newt Gingrich?
Nov. 14: ‘You Have to Answer for Santino, Carlo’

Category: Election 2012, Newt Gingrich

VIDEO: How Obama Stole Christmas

Posted on | December 6, 2011 | 4 Comments

This video is destined to go viral:

Hat-tip to Alyssa Farah, who sent me the press release:

COLLEGE REPUBLICANS: OBAMA
HAS PUT SANTA OUT OF WORK
Washington, DC, December 5, 2011 — The College Republican National Committee has released a new Christmas-themed campaign video depicting your favorite Christmas characters checking into the unemployment line.
It appears everyone from Charlie Brown to the Grinch is facing the same problem as millions of Americans: they cannot find work in the Obama-economy.
According to the video, the North Pole has been hit as hard as most of the nation where unemployment hovers just below 9.0% and is nearly twice that among young people.
The video ends with the simple message, “give the gift that keeps giving: vote conservative!” This video is the first in a series of video College Republicans will be releasing leading up to the November 2012 election.

Congratulations to these kids for doing such a great job.

COLLEGE REPUBLICANS
“The Best Party on Campus!”

Category: Barack Obama, Christmas, Video

You Have To Admire Nancy Pelosi

Posted on | December 6, 2011 | 30 Comments

by Smitty

Daily Pundit reacts to Nancy Pelosi’s outburst of affection for Newt Gingrich with a wild burst of affection:

Pelosi’s real worry is that a Gingrich Presidency probably means she’ll end up doing some time in the Graybar Hotel for her own depredations. Gingrich is notably petty and vindictive, and he’s just mean enough – and knowledgeable enough – to wreak vengeance on the California Cupid Stunt.
You know what, though? She’s got bupkus that will make any difference. The Dems are absolutely terrified of Newt Gingrich in the White House. He’s got their numbers, knows where all their bodies, living and dead, are buried, and has a history of doing more damage to their power than any single man since the advent of the FDR era. Remember, it was Newt who broke their half-century stranglehold on the House of Representatives, the wellspring of legislation, a stranglehold they’ve never since really regained. They fear him with a great fear, and with extremely good reason.

I’m not fully sold on Newt. I seem to recall a time when I was just old enough to vote, that Newt was Speaker. Ross Perot, that proto-Tea Partier, had just split the conservative vote, and given us Bubba. Newt’s Contract with America was a swell way to harness that Perot energy. Where did that energy go?

Nancy understands exactly where the lines are. I don’t buy that her statement is less than calculated. She buys a substantial chunk of the value of any ‘Newtaquiddick’ revelations merely by hinting at their ‘existence’. There is the insinuation that something really bad has gone on. Maybe Newt likes to use cars as submarines?

This is a fact-free finger point. Her task is merely to sow doubt, as she’s quickly walked the hint back to nothing not publicly available. You have to see this as the same technique used to take down Herman Cain. Whether or not substantial evidence outside of public view exists matters not; those who, gullibly, believe thing #1 in the stream of effluent emerging from Pelosi will figure that, like Herman Cain, Newt absolutely has to be hiding something: Newt is guilty.

Says Nancy

“I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year.”

The supply of loose Al-Qaeda thugs has certainly dwindled, but there still enough out there that three could be found with whom we should like to lock Nancy in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. It might help adjust her attitude. The aroma alone could help clear her head. Those guys are so malodorous as to make #Occupy hippies pleasant by comparison.

The real point here is that the notion of innocence until guilt is proven needs some shoring. Nancy herself is likely technically free of any wrongdoing, as detailed in Throw Them All Out. We should not let the urge for emotional satisfaction in seeing her marched off to jail trigger any ex post facto witch hunts. The last century of Progressivism has been an extended act of theft. Guilt abounds. So, hammer Nancy if in fact she is found in violation of existing law, but be very, very careful about the ready, shoot, aim approach.

Newt, one hopes, will offer some Saul-to-Paul testimony that can build confidence that he’s not pulling the ’90s stunt of harnessing patriotic energy to further the Progressive project. It’s something of an irony that the guy with arguably the most education about what the country was founded to be is the guy with the least publicly demonstrated will to carry out that founding vision.

Hence the Santorum interest. And may God have mercy on the foul Nancy Pelosi.

Also brimming with affection for Nancy: Dell Hill “Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants”. To which I’ll reply:

Michael Corleone: No! Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.

The poor wee Nancy.

But this afternoon, Pelosi’s spokesman, Drew Hammill, suggested that her comments have been misconstrued beyond the leader’s intent.

Representative Pelosi, if you had any less credibility, you would be Harry Reid. Your little backstab had precisely the intended effect, just as you send Hammill out to play the ‘misconstrued’ card.

The only people who believe you, Nancy, are those whose belief you rent.

Update: linked by Fischersville Mike, who makes the interesting point that Newt has been a Virginian for the last decade.

Category: Democrats, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum

Guess Who Says, ‘Santorum’s Time’?

Posted on | December 6, 2011 | 47 Comments

Don Surber, “The Pro From Poca” :

The biggest beneficiary of Herman Cain’s decision to pull the plug on his campaign on Saturday was Rick Santorum, who is the last conservative standing as the Republican Party offers the Tea Party crowd their choice of RINOs. . . .
Need I remind people that at this point in 2007, the average of the polls showed Republicans were at Rick Giuliani 25.7%, John McCain 13.8%, Fred Thompson 13.7%, Rick Huckabee 13.5%, Mitt Romney 10.5%, Ron Paul 4.5%.
Not only is it not over till the fat lady sings, she has not even entered the theater.
Rick Santorum is and he is auditioning.

Read the whole thing and keep in mind that Rick Santorum is the only candidate in the GOP 2012 field who has visited all 99 counties in Iowa. Now he’s got Don Surber, he’s got Da Tech Guy, he’s got Lisa Graas and he’s got . . . Well, a neutral objective journalist certainly cannot ignore this unexpected upsurge of interest in the Rick Santorum campaign.

The pundits want you to think everything’s already settled, but here’s a headline you probably missed:

60% of Iowa Republicans Can Still
Change Mind in Latest Iowa Caucus Poll

That’s not a headline you’ll read in the MSM.

Category: Don Surber, Rick Santorum

Can You Tell The Difference Between Boxing And A Barroom Brawl?

Posted on | December 6, 2011 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

Via Zero Hedge we have yet another fine example of a useless Progressive, if you’ll pardon my pleonasm, here in Global Research by Paul Craig Roberts. The context is the purported threat by the Obama Administration to veto the Defense Authorization Bill, emphasis mine:

However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war. As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”
Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Laws of War are to countries what the rules of boxing are to fisticuffs. The Laws of War attempt to bound the behavior, so that the fight can occur while minimizing collateral damage. Countries that adhere to the Geneva Conventions grasp that the behaviors outlawed by the convention, e.g. blowing up hospitals, have no military value and will only prolong conflict.

Boxing presumes adherence to rules, as well. Boxers don’t put each other in chokeholds. As a thought experiment, say Paul Craig Roberts approached Mike Tyson in a bar, and put a chokehold on Tyson. What is the likelihood that Tyson is going to brush Roberts off and say “Come, my good man: let us engage in a civilized bout.”? The phrase “Roberts looked like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone” comes to mind, to paraphrase Croce. Do you fine Tyson according to the rules of boxing for scattering a few pieces of Roberts about? Why, no: it wasn’t a boxing match.

Why under the sun do these idiots keep attempting these misapplications of the rules? Two closely related sources are:

the Postmodern attack on Western Civilization, and
the Alinskyite urge to make the other guy live by his rules (Rule #4).

And it’s high time we call out these idiots like Roberts. They are either useful idiots waging a soft campaign in service of the foe, or diabolical enemies badly in need of a ‘Mike Tyson’ moment of their own.

The radical Islamic terrorists who beset Western Civilization are barroom brawling creeps. We still, by the way, treat them very, very well when they are captured, if the weight gains at various places of detention mean anything. But these terrorists have do not and will not conform to the rules of boxing. Why should they, when the likes of Roberts and his ilk support their cause? Easier to destroy boxing slowly than give up being a brawler.

The best argument of the Roberts crowd seems to be that if boxers treat brawlers like brawlers too much, the boxers will become brawlers. Some slippery slope exists, they imply. This does not make perfect sense, but it veers closely enough toward reality that it may confuse those not choosing to think. For all the hubbub about waterboarding, labeled ‘torture’ on Wikipedia, note that even Wikipedia allows that the actual number of usages can be counted on one hand with leftover fingers. Rumsfeld allowed the same amount in his book. Now, you can contend that Rumsfeld is engaged in a Holder-esque game of lying early, lying often, and lying big, but then you are admitting that we have a far greater problem in that our federal government has gone completely off the rails.

None of this argument is to be taken as support for the Obama Administration. The whole Afghanistan argument was a cheesy way to make a foreign policy statement that sounded vaguely credible during the 2008 campaign, but which became an ambiguous muddle at best. While not going the full Ron Paul here, one hopes that the United States takes a serious look at the costs of nation building over the last decade and understands that we should never bother with this sort of noise again.

Category: Barack Obama, Democrats, Michigan

« go back — keep looking »

About

This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

LIVE AT FIVE – 12.07.11

Pardon Me, Allahpundit: The Gerald Ford Analogy? Pardon Me

Glenn Beck, American At Large

Why Gingrich Will Lose: ‘Newt Wears Arrogance Like a Zebra Wears Stripes’

VIDEO: How Obama Stole Christmas

You Have To Admire Nancy Pelosi

Guess Who Says, ‘Santorum’s Time’?

Can You Tell The Difference Between Boxing And A Barroom Brawl?

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Search

Recent Posts

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Major Leagues

Archives

Free Agents

SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

Triple-A Franchises

Blogroll

About

Subscribe to our feed

Search

Admin